The fact that Android phones outsell iPhones does not equate to Android being the dominate mobile music device. You can not discount the hundreds of million of iPods sold.
Also I would be willing to bet that the percentage of iPhones sold that are actually used for music is higher than for Android, as there are a lot of low end Android phones sold to people who just use them as phones.

I'm willing to bet that its around the same. It does not matter if they bought it for phones or apps. Since people even use Nokia dumb phones for music.

Non-music listener + iPhone = no music
Music listener + iPhone = music

Same with Android devices or a Nokia 1001

And with this topic, I use FLAC, I have a Mac and I use iTunes, I just keep a folder with FLAC. Its just stupid and selfish of Apple to not support FLAC.

I'm surprised they haven't made a new format to replace MP3 yet and stop supporting MP3.

I'm willing to bet that its around the same. It does not matter if they bought it for phones or apps. Since people even use Nokia dumb phones for music.
Non-music listener + iPhone = no music
Music listener + iPhone = music
Same with Android devices or a Nokia 1001
And with this topic, I use FLAC, I have a Mac and I use iTunes, I just keep a folder with FLAC. Its just stupid and selfish of Apple to not support FLAC.
I'm surprised they haven't made a new format to replace MP3 yet and stop supporting MP3.

I thought .mp4 was that format lol :). I remember itunes back then doing it's own thing automatically and even converting my songs to .mp4. In then end wasting a hole lot of space and I had a hard time finding the folder to get rid of the crap :P.

The fact that Android phones outsell iPhones does not equate to Android being the dominate mobile music device. You can not discount the hundreds of million of iPods sold.
Also I would be willing to bet that the percentage of iPhones sold that are actually used for music is higher than for Android, as there are a lot of low end Android phones sold to people who just use them as phones.

The very fact that FLAC is not supported by any apple medium kinda shoots that down. I cannot think of a single playback software program that does not support ALAC. As for portable devices, they are convenience devices and most people use Apple..which doesn't support FLAC. For those who use other portables, their syncing software will transcode if needed..

PS- There are no DRM issues with ripping files to ALAC.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jvandyk

If Android doesn't work with ALAC, it is crippled "fo show!"

Did you even read the comparison ? why create "super" alac(apple lossless audio codec) when apple device have mediocre hardware for music playback.... cowon ftw

The reason apple made ALAC is to have their own form of Lossless codec. But originally they wanted to have complete control of it. So it all stems from the will to control you. The very reason why I hate them so much. It's smart I agree but also very greedy and manipulative. Heck I have one of their products and can vouch I don't plan on buying anything from them again. The mantra quite frankly stinks.

Wow you hate a company due to a misguided belief that they want to control you?
No. They want to control their primary technologies in order to control the user experience. Their goal is an excellent user experience. If you want to tinker, don't buy in to it, easy fix.
No need to hate. They are not the borg.
They have actually made some significant contributions to tech that users of many companies products enjoy, including blinkered Apple haters.

Having their own type of lossless codec does not in anyway help them 'control the user experience' or help them achieve 'excellent user experience'.

All it does is it lock in their users. 99% of Apple's customers have no idea how to convert ALAC to FLAC, or be bothered. And almost every computers users (even if they don't have a music player) manage music in iTunes, which means when they rip music, they have no choice but to convert it to ALAC if they want to have lossless.

So when someone has an iPod with lossless music, they have no choice but to keep sticking with Apple devices, or if someone wants a new music device (Windows or Mac user) buys iPods because other devices don't support their iTunes collection.

Having their own type of lossless codec does not in anyway help them 'control the user experience' or help them achieve 'excellent user experience'.

All it does is it lock in their users. 99% of Apple's customers have no idea how to convert ALAC to FLAC, or be bothered. And almost every computers users (even if they don't have a music player) manage music in iTunes, which means when they rip music, they have no choice but to convert it to ALAC if they want to have lossless.

So when someone has an iPod with lossless music, they have no choice but to keep sticking with Apple devices, or if someone wants a new music device (Windows or Mac user) buys iPods because other devices don't support their iTunes collection.

Unless you are willing to find work arounds. Hack the product (jail-break it) or download a program to allow for it. No matter how you put it you have to work around it to use a format that is universal for years and will continue to be so (control) ;).

That's one way to look at, and there could be some truth to it.
Another way to look at it is they didn't want to commit to a technology and could change in unforeseen ways and require users to transcode entire iTunes libraries.
If Apple wanted to lock in users files, why did they successfully fight the record labels to allow them to sell DRM free music?

Because it's all in the name of profit. People were getting turned off from DRM music which means less sales. Even I stopped buying downloads at a certain point due to the stupid protections. Apple is gonna do what is in their best interest for the almighty dollar. And rightfully so. Just in this case it also benefited the customers. :)

That's one way to look at, and there could be some truth to it.
Another way to look at it is they didn't want to commit to a technology and could change in unforeseen ways and require users to transcode entire iTunes libraries.
If Apple wanted to lock in users files, why did they successfully fight the record labels to allow them to sell DRM free music?

Studies showed that users are less likely to pirate and more likely to buy music if its DRM-free.

Apple is not the only one to fight DRM, Amazon got rid of it a few years before Apple did.

And can you explain what you mean by: "Another way to look at it is they didn't want to commit to a technology and could change in unforeseen ways and require users to transcode entire iTunes libraries."

Apple came out publicly in favour of DRM free music one year before Amazon got rid of DRM from music (from the big four record labels) which was one year before Apple removed it from all music they sell. Amazon was in a stronger position as they had much lower sales than Apple and record companies had less to lose. Effectively they could use Amazon as a trial to see what the effect would be if they allowed Apple to do the same.

All I meant was that, if Apple had allowed lossless ripping to FLAC (tech they don't control) and if FLAC was updated and changed in any manner that they opposed. They would then need to change the lossless encoder in iTunes which would cause disruption for users.

Unfavourable changes to FLAC may have been unlikely but it would still have been a risk for them to support it from their perspective. FLAC is not an ISO standard like AAC.